Why Jeff Price Is Horribly Misinformed About YouTube Monetization…

The following response post comes from Emmanuel Zunz, founder and CEO of ONErpm.com, a digital distribution company focused on DIY and indie artists and labels.  ONErpm also has a Multi-Channel Network (MCN) on YouTube specializing in music.  

Jeff Price was correct in yesterday’s post when he wrote there are two ways musicians can earn money on YouTube, but I find the rest of his statements to be inaccurate.

The first way an artist can make money is through a revenue split with YouTube for advertisements running alongside and within your videos on your own official channel.  In order to monetize these videos and participate in YouTube’s revenue sharing program, you must become a STANDARD YouTube partner, which takes minutes to set up and is available to all YouTube users  provided they have not violated their terms of service, and then CLAIM these videos in your channel.

The other way to make money on YouTube is through Content ID, YouTube’s fingerprinting technology that identifies your music and/or videos that are partially or entirely used by other YouTube users on their channels.  This special technology is NOT available to everyone, and is only awarded to PREMIUM partners that depending on their deal with YouTube have different benefits and tools available to them. In order to monetize those CONTENT ID videos on your behalf, YouTube automatically generates a CLAIM at which point the advertising revenue flows to you instead of the other channel.

What Jeff and his company Audiam have failed to mention is that Content ID claims versus claims on your own official channel pay out at different royalty percentages.

Content ID claims are considered User Generated Content Claims, or UGC claims.  Examples range from the video of your grandma dancing at her 60th birthday party with your music playing in the background, to someone copying your music video and uploading it illegally to their channel. These claims pay out at 35%.

The Claims on your official YT channel pay out a much higher rate. According to Jeff, that payout is 55%, but it varies per country and some Premium Partners get up to 65%. These are considered Premium claims.

If I understand Audiam’s business model correctly (I have tested the service), it’s a pure Content ID play.  So here is my first point: Audiam states that they pay artists 100% of the revenues they collect for them from their own channel.  But by generating UGC claims on their channels that pay out at 35% instead of the Standard 55% an artist can get on their own, they are actually reducing the amount of money a musician can make through a Standard direct deal with YouTube.

There are two solutions to this problem.

(1) Whitelisting.

As Steven Corn of BFM Digital rightly noted in the comment thread from yesterday’s post, YouTube allows you to “Whitelist” channels so that the Content ID skips over these channels and does not generate UGC claims. That would allow the artists to take advantage of the higher percentage while also getting the benefits of Content ID which Audiam provides, as well as my company, ONErpm, among others.

(2) Joining a Multi-Channel Network.

The second solution is to join a Multi-Channel Network (MCN), an option Audiam seemingly does not offer. MCNs offer a number of benefits that are not available to musicians through a Standard Direct deal with YouTube. These include better royalty rates on Premium claims within your own channel (ONErpm gets up to 65% for channels in the United States), the ability to place higher paying ads against your content that have higher CPMs or Cost per Thousand views thereby greatly increasing your revenue, and Content ID for audio as well as for Video matches, which pay more than pure audio matches.

My company, ONErpm, a digital distribution company, offers both options to our artists and labels. Listen, Audio Content ID is relatively easy. Any music company with a Premium YT Partnership can offer Content ID. It’s an automated process where YouTube does most of the work and all you have to do is deliver the audio to them.

That’s why distribution companies like The Orchard, BFM Digital, and others, have been offering Content ID for a while now and it is technically no different than what Audiam does.

It takes a little maintenance as there are often territorial and other rights disputes that arise, but these are pretty easily managed.  There is nothing revolutionary about what Audiam does, Jeff Price knows it and that’s why he’s calling others thieves and creating controversy wherever he goes.

But no amount of finger pointing and name calling will conceal what will become evident soon enough as you continue to read below, his service offering is inferior to what already exists out there.

Clearly, Jeff is concerned or he would not have recently partnered with another distribution company in the attempt to offer a more complete service.

I signed up for an Audiam account to test the service. I uploaded a track and submitted it for Content ID fingerprinting. (By the way I had no right to upload this track, so it seems their system can be easily manipulated for fraudulent activity).

Nowhere in my account does the site ask me for my official YouTube account or link. My question is then…

(a) How will they know what is my channel and what is not my channel?

(b) If they are going to pay me 100% of the money they collect from my own channel, how will they know what to separate?

(c) If they are going to whitelist my channel, they should ask for my channel user name and link, right?

Moreover, there is no verification process to confirm my identity upon sign up, aside from the verification email. They only ask for the artist name when you upload the song, and they don’t require ISRC codes. Content ID in the wrong hands can easily be abused.

When my company first started working with YouTube, we noticed that several prominent media and lifestyle companies had falsely laid claims to many of our top artists’ work and had been monetizing their content without ever paying them.  These were big artists with very popular videos and had been taken advantage of for over one year.

It seems Audiam’s system is an invitation to fraudulent activity, something that was rampant at Tunecore under Jeff’s tenure.

At ONErpm, every album is manually verified and listened to before being delivered to YouTube and other services, namely to prevent fraud but also to make sure the audio has no defects and we like to know who we’re working with.

The real work on YouTube, and what I find challenging and exciting, is helping artists grow their channels and connect with a larger audience, and thus helping them succeed in doing what they love.  That’s why my company is heavily investing resources into our MCN.  We’re hiring content creators to work with our top channels to create unique content for them. We’re developing cross-channel promotional strategies so like minded artists can build together and leverage each other’s audiences. We’re having to think like a broadcaster.

And yes, we make money doing this. We keep 30% and pay 70%, for money made via Content ID and on the artists’ channel that are part of our network.

The difference between ONErpm and Audiam is that once an artists’ channel joins our Network, their videos become monetized at the 65% rate in the US, and we optimize their channel so that they get higher paying ads, sweetening the deal even more.  So while we keep 30% of the revenues from their own channel, we generally are able to double the artists’ revenues first.

I think that’s a better deal than lowering their rate to 35% through Content ID, then falsely stating they are revolutionizing once again the music industry and representing artists’ better interests.

Finally, Jeff Price’s argument that distribution companies don’t have the right to monetize videos on your behalf doesn’t make sense to me.  Isn’t that up to you and your distribution company? As long as they are paying you and being transparent about it, and you agree to it, then what’s the problem?

Many artists we work with never even thought of monetizing their videos before we informed them of the opportunity, and many just have too much on their plate to manage it.

There are many services offering YouTube monetization so consider your options carefully.  ONErpm started our YouTube partnership only recently, in January of this year.  Being very active over the last two years in Brazil, we have quickly become the #1 music network in that country and #3 MCN overall.

The company is still in its early stages; we are learning a great deal and working passionately to perfect our system. We’reprofitable though and don’t rely on investors, so we do what is best for the artist, and are truly an independent company. There are other services out there so we hope you will consider working with us.

Thanks,

Emmanuel.

[email protected]

101 Responses

  1. Peter Wells
    Peter Wells

    Plenty to say, Emmanuel, but let me start with this. You said:
    
I signed up for an Audiam account to test the service. I uploaded a track and submitted it for Content ID fingerprinting. (By the way I had no right to upload this track, so it seems their system can be easily manipulated for fraudulent activity).
    You didn’t mention that our awesome employee Mike Gavigan noticed the problem instantly (note the timestamp, YESTERDAY, when you submitted it, before we sent anything to YouTube)and wrote you back. He wrote:

    On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Audiam Support wrote:
    Hi Emmanuel,
    I noticed that for the track you are trying to upload, the song name and file name do not match.
    Song: fun in the sun
    File name: 02 Ruído Abóbora.mp3
    I tried to translate it and it didn’t seem to match up.
    Just want to make sure this is correct before we put it in.
    Thanks,
    Mike

    Audiam Support
    [email protected]

    We spot fraud with brilliant customer support that presumes the integrity of our customers and reaches out to them. In fact, you wrote back:

    From: Emmanuel Zunz
    Subject: Re: Your Audiam Upload
    Date: August 15, 2013 11:16:03 AM EDT
    To: Audiam Support

    Thanks for your email Mike. No please do not put it through.
    Best

    So if we hadn’t written you catching this, you’d have…what? Used our service in bad faith?
    Much, much more to say.

    –Peter

    Reply
  2. Tune
    Tune

    If you are correct with this “Content ID” we are just moments away from YouTube – the label, YouTube – the music store and YouTube pirate weed-whacker / cash machine.
    I am optimistic and impressed with this hidden infrastructure!

    Reply
  3. Peter Wells
    Peter Wells

    Next point. You say:
    If I understand Audiam’s business model correctly (I have tested the service), it’s a pure Content ID play. So here is my first point: Audiam states that they pay artists 100% of the revenues they collect for them from their own channel. But by generating UGC claims on their channels that pay out at 35% instead of the Standard 55% an artist can get on their own, they are actuallyreducing the amount of money a musician can make through a Standard direct deal with YouTube. 


    This is incorrect, you don’t understand our business or YouTube correctly. How exactly would Audiam (or any company, for that matter), claim a video that didn’t have music in it? If someone has a video on their own channel that doesn’t use an Audiam customers’ sound recording, we don’t claim it. Of course we don’t. Why would we?
    You can’t possibly be this ignorant about how claims work. But it’s certainly a scary thing to lash out and invent accusations–please don’t do that any more, we’re trying to inform artists, not misinform them.
    More to come!
    –Peter

    Reply
      • Peter Wells
        Peter Wells

        If it’s their own music in their own video on their own channel, then Audiam takes 0%. I don’t know how to be any more clear than that. Zero. Zippo. Nothing. We don’t touch it.
        This just can’t be a point of confusion. It can’t.
        –Peter

        Reply
    • Emmanuel Zunz
      Emmanuel Zunz

      The rates we get depend on where the video is played. Its 55% in other countries. But if your channel is getting the play in the US its up to 65%.

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        Oh, I see. Thank you.
        Also thanks for providing solid information:
        “So while we keep 30% of the revenues from their own channel, we generally are able to double the artists’ revenues first.”
        I wish your competitors could be persuaded to do the same. It would make life so much easier for the artist.

        Reply
      • Jeff Price
        Jeff Price

        This information is simply not true and its disturbing that you are provding wrong information to artists
        Please please take a moment to get more educated in the sector before posting statements like this
        Jeff

        Reply
        • Zac Shaw
          Zac Shaw

          “This information is simply not true and its disturbing that you are provding wrong information to artists”
          Jeff, this is your opportunity to clarify…
          “Please please take a moment to get more educated in the sector before posting statements like this”
          …and you’re blowing it with ad hominem attacks

          Reply
  4. Thanks!
    Thanks!

    Excellent description of how you’re using YouTube to add value to your artist. And you even did it without yelling at people and calling them thieves. Imagine that!

    Reply
  5. Jeff Price
    Jeff Price

    Sadly, what Mr. Zunz has written is not correct – either in regards to YouTube or in regards to Audiam.
    For example, Audiam can and does link YouTube accounts allowing an artist to make money on their own videos, it just takes 0% of that money.
    In addition, his suggestion that royalty rates are lower etc are incorrect
    As a gentleman’s bet, why not have an artist use Audiam and also his company and compare the royalty statements?
    But the bigger question is why does it take an article about YouTube to have distributors step forward to begin to explain to its customers what options they have and why they take their rights and money without first educating them on how things work?
    The goal should be to educate the artist and allow them to make informed decisions as opposed to figuring out the best ways to make money off them
    Thank You.
    Jeff.

    Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        Jeff Price:
        “As a gentleman’s bet, why not have an artist use Audiam and also his company and compare the royalty statements?”
        Emmanuel Zunz:
        “I like that bet! You’re on.”
        Guys, we expect to see the results soon!

        Paul, could you please make sure that there’s no cheating? 🙂

        Reply
        • Mark
          Mark

          “As a gentleman’s bet, why not have an artist use Audiam and also his company and compare the royalty statements?”

          Because it is against youtube contentID Terms of Service to upload to multiple collection schemes.
          You have to have exclusive rights or exlcusive digital distribution rights to enter anything into the youtube contentID system. The fact you are both wanting to make a contest out of how much one artist can earn from two systems shows neither of your really know what you are talking about.

          Reply
  6. Paul Resnikoff
    Paul Resnikoff

    I’m sitting here trying to figure out which is more confusing from a royalty standpoint, YouTube or Spotify (or any audio-only streaming service, for that matter)?
    And which pays worse, YouTube or Spotify (or any audio-only streaming service, for that matter)?
    I’m getting the impression that the answer to the second question is the former.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      Youtube statements are far more confusing, and Youtube pays far, far worse per stream than Spotify. Pretty close to the statutory Pandora-type rates on average from Youtube.

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        “Youtube pays far, far worse per stream than Spotify”
        Yeah, but the tube is huge compared to Spotify.
        Which means you can make way more money from YouTube…

        Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “And which pays worse, YouTube or Spotify”
      YouTube probably pays a bit more if you work with an MCN and a bit less if you’re on your own.
      But the main difference is that:
      1) You can monetize everything on YouTube — meaning that you don’t have cannibalize iTunes sales by putting entire songs up, and…
      2) You can get ten times more streams on YouTube. I haven’t seen Psy’s latests numbers, but I suppose the next corner is 2B.
      And he’s not the only one; I saw someone else approaching half a billion yesterday; I think it was Adele…

      Reply
      • GGG
        GGG

        And once again, those same songs on Spotify are approaching, hitting, or doing better than YouTube numbers with such a small percentage of the users comparatively, it’s insane.
        Radioactive by Imagine Dragons
        122M on Spotify
        64M on their official video on YouTube/Vevo

        Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          You also forget two other factors:
          1) Video is the future. I don’t think you’ll deny that.
          2) Nobody knows if Spotify survives. It loses money and artists by the hour; it seems to be at war with content holders on a permanent basis. Any number of things can go wrong any day.

          Reply
          • GGG
            GGG

            1) In what sense? Not everyone wants to watch a video when they play a song. Case in point, there are at least two unofficial Radioactive videos that are just the album art or some other photo. And they have millions of views. You think those million people sat there and stared at the photo? No, it was queued up at a party or stuck on when getting ready to go out or any number of things. Your idea that people will need a visual with music is silly. Music is not a visual art form. It can be when another element is added, but it is purely an aural thing.
            2) It’s at war with content holders because as it exists right now it isn’t great. But again, get even 10% of YouTube’s audience paying for Spotify, the numbers and payouts to artists will be massive. Radioactive has 122M plays from a few million people. Imagine 100M people on Spotify, 10%. That shit would be approaching a billion plays easy.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “Music is not a visual art form”
            Here’s what the world’s best songwriters had to say:
            Mach Schau!
            “[Spotity is] at war with content holders because as it exists right now it isn’t great”
            And I don’t see any signs of improvement. On the contrary…

          • GGG
            GGG

            I’m not talking about live. What do you think, in the future, I’m going to be walking down the street with my headphones on staring at my phone or tablet because I can’t possibly enjoy a song without staring at a screen too? This argument just makes no sense.
            You never point out any contrary. I throw numbers at you all the time showing how it’s almost as good as YouTube with a fraction of the users.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “What do you think, in the future, I’m going to be walking down the street with my headphones on staring at my phone or tablet because I can’t possibly enjoy a song without staring at a screen too?”
            No, you’ll watch it on your Google glasses.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “I throw numbers at you all the time showing how it’s almost as good as YouTube with a fraction of the users. ”
            …and I keep reminding you that the experts use YouTube — not Spotify — as their number one source of music discovery:
            “the most popular way today’s teens discover music is through clicking around on YouTube.
            That’s the finding of a new study by media research firm Nielsen. Its Music 360 report set out to learn how music is found, purchased and consumed.”
            Source: CNN/Nielsen, August 2012
            http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/15/tech/web/teens-music-youtube/index.html?hpt=h

          • GGG
            GGG

            Uh…I’ve never denied that. YouTube is a well established company/outlet for music, that again, like you said, is the number 1 way to find music and pays shit, but somehow that doesn’t bother you…. Spotify is not well established yet, but still hits similar marks. Imagine in 2-3 years what it could be like, again, with even 10% of YouTubes user numbers.
            You spout that Spotify cannibalizes sales despite data saying otherwise or at the very least not supporting your stance, but YouTube doesn’t possibly cannibalize sales because you can monetize other stuff, as well. So what? You can monetize a making of video AND be losing a sale if that’s what you think streaming does. I don’t know why you think the former someone convinces someone to buy a record if the song is right there.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “Imagine in 2-3 years what it could be like, again, with even 10% of YouTubes user numbers.”
            I just don’t think that’s the way things are going.
            But we’ll have to see, won’t we…

  7. #1 Billboard Record
    #1 Billboard Record

    As a professional songwriter/producer with a #1 Billboard record, I have recently chosen to partner with Audiam to collect revenue from use of my compositions within youtube.
    I spend time reading most of what is posted here on DMN and I have to say your statement regarding Audiam NOT requiring ISRC’s is in fact incorrect.
    Peter actually reached out to me recently for the ISRC’s for the releases I have been a part of.
    The reason I chose Audiam? Respect for what Jeff and Peter stand for and the fact that they have been only a hanful of industry folks willing to speak out about the craziness that is the music industry.
    I find it fascinating that most of those who speak on these issues typically arent profressionals, have no major placements to speak of, dont understand the inner workings of music publishing, not to mention little understanding of copyright (which thankfully will be overhauled soon).
    Btw Zunz nice plug of your company. I almost didnt catch that.

    Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        HA! I thought the exact same thing. It’s either him or he’s put someone up to posting something he has written. Hilarious!

        Reply
    • Amused
      Amused

      It is funny that Audiam asks for ISRC codes.
      Funnier still to hear Price reached out for an ISRC code for its tracks after he insisted for years that they serve no purpose whatsoever.
      Now he wants them. Whassup with that?

      Reply
  8. Visitor
    Visitor

    Got to love this place. Where a pissing match between two “executives” passes for marketing of their respective services.
    Glad to see how much the music business continues to “evolve”.
    Makes you miss the old days even more…

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “Where a pissing match between two “executives” passes for marketing of their respective services.”
      It may be amusing to you, but it’s useful information for artists.

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        I totally agree it’s most useful for us artists! I had my concerns about Audiam in the first place, being it that Tunecore left such a bad taste in my mouth in prior years. I didn’t know of any alternative service providers for YouTube, but now I do! Thank you DMN!

        Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          Thank you DMN!”
          Yes, thank you DMN from me as well! Great articles, I have learned a lot!
          Most importantly, I’ve learned that I can do anything these companies do — without paying any %.
          1) I’m perfectly capable at optimizing my own channels. YMMV, but YouTube provide a lot of information on the subject. Magic is not involved.
          2) I can use Content ID to monetize unauthorised uploads without the use of Audiam or any other middle men. Because Content ID is available to:
          “exclusive rightholders whose content is frequently uploaded to YouTube by the user community”
          https://www.youtube.com/t/contentid
          Which means it’s available to — yes, you guessed it — anybody who needs it.
          Here’s more from the link above:
          “Block, Monetize, or Track Viewing Metrics — It’s Automated, and It’s Free

          What is Content ID?
          YouTube’s state-of-the-art technologies let rights owners:
          Identify user-uploaded videos comprised entirely OR partially of their content, andChoose, in advance, what they want to happen when those videos are found. Make money from them. Get stats on them. Or block them from YouTube altogether.
          It’s up to you.
          How does Content ID work?
          Rights holders deliver YouTube reference files (audio-only or video) of content they own, metadata describing that content, and policies on what they want YouTube to do when we find a match.
          We compare videos uploaded to YouTube against those reference files.
          Our technology automatically identifies your content and applies your preferred policy: monetize, track, or block.
          Why use Content ID?
          Make Money. Hundreds of media companies have signed up already, multiplying their inventory of monetizeable videos.Fan Interaction. Turn your fans into marketers and distributors of your content—while letting them interact with their favorite content.Reduce Infringement. Educate your fans about your copyright preferences and prevent your content from being distributed on YouTube without your permission.Fully Automated. Once you’re set up, Content ID will identify, claim, and apply policies to YouTube videos for you.Market Data. Access snapshots of your content profile on YouTube, anytime. See how your videos are performing, monetizing, being blocked—at a glance.”

          Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      Yes, after hundreds of back n forth posts watching these guys fight amongst themselves, we are stuck somewhere in a Clinton like argument, where we are still fighting about the meaning of the word “is”. Your company does this and charges x. Nuh uh….
      I’d prefer they just put out what they do, what it costs and just stand behind it. This pissing back and forth doesn’t inspire confidence…

      Reply
  9. Steven Corn (BFM)
    Steven Corn (BFM)

    Emmanuel, you’ve got it right as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know how the gentleman’s bet will work since uploading the same recording from two sources will obfuscate the Content ID system. But if you do it, please publish the results.
    I still think that you, Jeff and Peter, are guilty of fear mongering and name calling cast under the banner of informing the masses. I can only hope that it is a brilliant method to generate free publicity. But I suspect that you drink your own kool-aid.

    Reply
  10. TuneSat Mike
    TuneSat Mike

    Bashing Jeff Price has become something of a “sport” and it’s boring because Jeff is one of the few people in the industry who actually is working to the benefit of artists and rightsholders. Audiam’s model is brilliant and simple. I am not sure why Mr. Zunz feels like it’s important to spread misinformation. However, after being in several meetings WITH Jeff, our team from TuneSat and the people from Google – Jeff has it right and in some ways he is schooling Google on their own ecosystem. (Did I say: where did the foreign publishing money go, YouTube? Oops, I did!)
    The rules have changed and the word of 2013 is “monetization” and the industry is running to catch-up with Jeff. All I have to say is sign-up for Audiam or good luck trying to catch him.
    – mjw

    Reply
    • Emmanuel Zunz
      Emmanuel Zunz

      My intent is not to bash anyone or spread misinformation. Quite the contrary. I wanted to provide a fuller picture of the inner workings of YouTube and ContentID. I also would not have been inspired to write the article had Jeff not called distribution companies “thieves” the day before. I sincerely believe Audiam’s business model is flawed for the reasons I stated above and wanted to set the record straight.

      Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      Looks to me like Jeff put you up to chiming in as well. You guys are rediculous!
      Btw, I think people bash Jeff Price not because it’s some sport, but most likely because he deserves it.

      Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      This simply looks to me like Jeff put you up to chiming in as well. And really, “schooling Google”? Give me a break! You guys are rediculous!
      Btw, I think people bash Jeff Price not because it’s some sport as you say, but most likely because he deserves it. He hasn’t done anything for artists and rightsholders, but use them to fatten his pockets.

      Reply
  11. Jeff Price
    Jeff Price

    So im sitting at an airport finally got to read Mr. Zunz posting. I have to congatulate him on finding an ineresting marketing angle to try to aquire customers
    That said, sadly, he be wary, the information in his posting is not correct
    As one example, he states “(I have tested the service)”
    Sadly, Mr. Zunz has misrepresented the truth
    Below is the cut and paste of the email exchange between Mr. Zunz and Audiam’s customer care. Ill let that speak for itself (so much for “testing the service”)
    ————————————-
    From: Emmanuel Zunz
    Subject: Re: Your Audiam Upload
    Date: August 15, 2013 11:16:03 AM EDT
    To: Audiam Support

    Thanks for your email Mike. No please do not put it through.

    Best

    On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Audiam Support wrote:
    Hi Emmanuel,
    I noticed that for the track you are trying to upload, the song name and file name do not match.
    Song: fun in the sun
    File name: 02 Ruído Abóbora.mp3
    I tried to translate it and it didn’t seem to match up.
    Just want to make sure this is correct before we put it in.
    Thanks,
    Mike
    Audiam Support
    [email protected]

    —————-
    Next, Im not certain where Mr. Zunz has gotten his royalty payment information from but may are factually incorrect – for example he claims UGC claims pay at 35%. Thats just false – so either Mr Zunz does not know the rates or he fabricated it. Neither option is very good.
    Hes also wrong about the other royalty rates and processes
    But more importantly, correct information should be provided to ALL artists allowing them the ability to make informed decisions.
    They should not have information withheld from them by companies like Mr. Zunzs that take artists rights and a % of their money each time their music is sold or their own videos are viewed on YouTube
    That said, I am very pleased that this topic is not coming to light.
    Its about time

    Jeff

    Reply
  12. The Real Issue
    The Real Issue

    Jeff,
    If you really cared about artists, you would have just shared your freashly minted YouTube knowledge with Jason Mraz and advised him as to how he could get his own Publishing Content ID deal at YouTube. “I’m Yours” is an incredibly popular cover choice on YouTube, this was just low hanging fruit. In this senerio, all the money goes to Jason with no need for Audiam.
    Don’t try to tell me Jason could not have gotten his own deal.
    My guess is his catalog was the only reason Audiam got a Content ID deal at YouTube.
    Propping up your company on the back of Jason Mraz, sounds eerily similar to the type of business model you decry.
    The real mission is to get YouTube to open up Content ID to more condidates. Jeff, if you really care, lobby for this instead of just building another company on the backs of artists.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “The real mission is to get YouTube to open up Content ID to more condidates”
      You speak as if it were difficult for ordinary content owners to use Content ID.
      It isn’t.
      Here are the rules, according to YouTube:
      “This program is designed for exclusive rights holders whose content is frequently uploaded to YouTube by the user community.
      If no one is uploading content you own, you don’t need this program. For content owners with only occasional content management needs, or who seek a simpler solution, YouTube’s other copyright tools may be more appropriate.”
      https://www.youtube.com/t/contentid
      In short, Content ID is available to anyone who needs it.
      No middle men are required.

      Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      I think you’ve gotten that wrong. More like “they’ve taken so much from artists”.
      Secondly, JEFF, whenever you write posts as someone else, you should try to sound differently than you would normally, as well as correct your punctuation errors because it’s a dead giveaway.
      Just look at the other “suspicious” posts. Jeff always seems to write “cant, its, Im” etc. Pretty funny that all of these posts that favor Audiam or praise Jeff are written in the same manner.

      Reply
  13. Mark
    Mark

    Right
    https://www.youtube.com/t/contentid
    anyone qualified can sign up. If they need rumblefish or AdRev or AudioSparx or any of the other services that have been doing this for years then an artist can go ahead and sign up and have any of these services manage their catalog.
    Or they can do it themselves and earn 100%.

    Jeff seems to be copying a service that has existed for a very long time and claiming it to be a music industry game changer that he alone is responsible for.

    Reply
  14. Nothing new here, folks.
    Nothing new here, folks.

    Read both posts (I’m a stupid artist that needs to be educated and I want to understand) because there’s a lot to digest here. My takeaway for other artists:

    1. Firstly, nothing new here — others have been doing this for a while as pointed out by many. I know this as I have been looking into it.
    2. I went to their site and it appears Audiam charges an “admin fee” as opposed to a “distribution fee” and then says others are lying because YouTube monetization is not really distribution. So, I guess if the other distro cos called their YouTube services “an admin fee”, Audiam’s argument is pretty much a non-argument.
    3. Audiam also lets me keep what I make on my own channel which is appreciated but I make nada on my own channel and so it’s not such a big deal.

    Somebody else here thanked DMN and while I am grarteful for the discussion, I want to know why Audiam’s post was so revelatory? The announcement was kind of obnixous and you would have thought Audiam invented YouTube. In short, a lot of fanfare over nothing new.
    In addition, as an artist, although I appreciate Audiam wanting to “help” me, there’s something about the tactics that smack of insincerity — um, like torching everyone else for a greater good? That would be akin to me saying that all other artists suck so all music lovers should buy only my music unless you’re stupid, of course. Just like we artists need to grow more fan love, so should all of these companies — by offering the best service possible and transparency.
    Have a great Friday, all!

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “Somebody else here thanked DMN and while I am grarteful for the discussion, I want to know why Audiam’s post was so revelatory?”
      I’m one of those who thanked DMN.
      Not because Audiam’s post was revelatory in and of itself (though I thought it was, at first), but because it inspired me to dig deeper into the subject.
      And it’s now clear to me that I don’t need any of these services at all.
      Content ID is free and available if you need it.
      So is channel optimization.
      No middle men are required.
      I also think I understand the scheme behind Audiam now:
      It simply offers Content ID to people who want it — but don’t need it.
      Meaning: If you’re an artist who would make, say, $100 per year from unauthorized user generated content, then you probably won’t be able to sign up for Content ID directly. Because you don’t really need it. Content ID is meant for “exclusive rights holders whose content is frequently uploaded to YouTube”.
      Enter Audiam, who makes $25 per year from you while you keep the $75.
      These $75 a year obviously won’t mean much to you.
      But if Audiam can find 10,000 artists like you — and they already found 1,000 — then they’ll make $250,000 per year.
      And then it slowly begins to make sense.
      Not to you, but to Audiam. It’s all about the penny river.

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        As ContentID may be free to everyone, it still doesn’t mean you can get the higher paying ads to make it worth while on your own.

        Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          “As ContentID may be free to everyone, it still doesn’t mean you can get the higher paying ads to make it worth while on your own.”
          Have you noticed that not one of these companies guarantee any numbers?
          Because they can’t. Most of them won’t even tell you if they sell ads themselves; if they negotiate ad rates with sponsors, or what they do.
          Some of them tie you up for eternity, as has been the case with Machimima and Maker Studios. Some lower the revenues along the way.
          And most of them try to mislead you. A good example seems to be Emmanuel Zunz in this article where he claims that:
          “This special technology [Content ID] is NOT available to everyone, and is only awarded to PREMIUM partners that depending on their deal with YouTube have different benefits and tools available to them”
          While Content ID in the real world happens to be free and available to anyone who needs it:
          https://www.youtube.com/t/contentid
          So here are the only safe ways to ensure high paying ads:
          1) Make sure your content is great. Brands should want to advertise on your channels.
          2) Optimize your channels. You don’t need a third party to do that. YouTube tells you how:
          http://www.youtube.com/yt/playbook/channel-optimization.html

          Reply
          • Emmanuel Zunz
            Emmanuel Zunz

            No I’m not misleading anyone. While Content ID is available to some channels, YouTube does not allow everyone to get it. And what I meant by optimization is different than what is explained in the Playbook. What we do is we make certain the higher paying ads are running through your channel. Only partners that have access to YouTube’s Content Management System can do this. I’m happy to discuss this with you, and any one else, personally. Please email [email protected] to schedule a call.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “No I’m not misleading anyone”
            Sure you are, and you’re doing it again here:
            “While Content ID is available to some channels, YouTube does not allow everyone to get it”
            Content ID is available to anyone who needs it (exclusive rights holders whose content is frequently uploaded to YouTube by users).
            Not just to a few lucky channels, as you imply.
            https://www.youtube.com/t/contentid

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Actually, you are wrong. I’m an artist and tried to get Content ID a few months back, yet was denied by YouTube.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Then you didn’t need it (because your content is not frequently uploaded to YouTube by users) — or you didn’t own the exclusive rights to the content on your channels.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Um I’m pretty sure I own my original music.
            Being a musician in the cinematic genre, my music has been used in countless other videos, which actually get more views than my own channel. So your suggestion to go and get ContentID on your own because anyone can obtain it is just not true, as again I have tried!

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “Being a musician in the cinematic genre, my music has been used in countless other videos, which actually get more views than my own channel”
            Do you mean countless other legitimate videos?
            In that case, you don’t own the exclusive rights anymore and then that may be the reason you were turned down.
            If you mean illegitimate videos, then you and YouTube have different definitions of the word ‘countless’ and/or your total number of views fall below their threshold.
            You can get an idea of what YouTube thinks is a ‘decent’ amount of views (15,000 cumulative watch hours over the last 90 days, which translates to approx. 1 million 3-minute song views per month) here:
            https://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/creator-benefits.html

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Although I like your spirit, I have to point out that you are, in fact, incorrect about Content ID being available to everyone. Google’s internal official stance is that the potential for its abuse is far too great for the technology to be given to just anyone that applies for it.
            Imagine if Content ID were doled out to every DJ out there who applied for and received Content ID, and they started uploading and claiming all their mixes rife with uncleared samples. YouTube would likely explode.
            YouTube makes a determination for all those that apply, whether the artist “needs it”, based on catalog size, whether or not they own their master and publishing rights (or represent those rights for others), and how much User-Generated Content the catalog generates on YouTube.
            It is true that anyone can apply for Content ID, but it’s true that it’s not given to just anyone.
            Again, I applaud your wanting to thrash these two, but I just had to point that out for the sake of everyone reading this.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “Imagine if Content ID were doled out to every DJ out there who applied for and received Content ID, and they started uploading and claiming all their mixes rife with uncleared samples. YouTube would likely explode”
            Indeed, co-Visitor. 🙂
            And that’s why YouTube has two requirements for a Content ID applicant:
            1) Her content is frequently uploaded to YouTube by users, and…
            2) She is an exclusive rights holder.
            Content ID is indeed available and free to anyone who needs it — provided that they don’t abuse the system.
            I agree that I should have added the last part to my other comments. But then again, MCNs obviously prohibit abuse, too.

        • Nothing new here, again.
          Nothing new here, again.

          I’m not an artist making money from unauthorized user content. Maybe my music isn’t widely loved but not using unauthroized user generated content — just my own and the last time I checked, I own everything. Just wanted to clarify.
          Thanks for your feedback though. As I said, I have been looking into this for a while and I am not going to accuse anyone of lying or accuse someone else for having unauthorized content.
          My friend said there is definitely a difference between “premium” advertising rates and what she gets on her own and so while ContentID might be available to everyone, not everyone gets premium advertising rates which makes perfect sense to me. It’s because of my friend that I started looking into this in the first place. And, from what I can tell, YouTube definitely has premium partners.

          My only point was that there was nothing revelatory about YouTube monetization or Audiam’s service to warrant an article with a big old picture of someone in a ski mask. Why all the drama?

          Reply
          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “My friend said there is definitely a difference between “premium” advertising rates and what she gets on her own and so while ContentID might be available to everyone, not everyone gets premium advertising rates which makes perfect sense to me”
            Let’s separate the two — Content ID/UGC and higher advertising rates:
            Content ID is available to anyone who needs it, for free, so there doesn’t seem to be any need of Audiam’s services, for instance.
            As for higher advertising rates; again, you won’t get any guarantees from these networks — it’s not like when you sell a song on iTunes via TuneCore and you know how many cents you get in return.
            And the worst part is that you can get trapped in a legal nightmare you won’t be able to get out of again, while your channel views go up and your rates go down the drain. Because that happens to be the direction rates go at the moment.

          • Nothing new here
            Nothing new here

            I work in the advertising business (unfortunately, I have a day job because I can’t make money off music ;-)) and NO ONE can guarantee advertising rates! That’s just the way it is.

            But premium channels DO have higher advertising rates. Google it, I did. It’s known and my friends i smaking more money off a premium channel than when she was just on her own.
            Go ahead and get your ContentID and optimize your own channel. No one is stopping you. But, for the artists like me out there, who don’t necessarily have time to manage all this on their own, it’s not always possible to get your own ContentID (I’m gathering this from other posters on the board) and there is a difference in premium vs. standard advertising rates on Youtube.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “But premium channels DO have higher advertising rates.”
            Unfortunately, MCNs come at a price. They can be very hard to leave. Rates can go down. Most are far from transparent.
            That’s probably the reason YouTube does not recommend MCNs.
            http://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/join-mcn.html
            http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-22/its-getting-harder-to-make-money-on-youtube
            “Go ahead and get your ContentID and optimize your own channel. No one is stopping you.”
            No, but a lot of guys are definitely trying…

  15. Visitor
    Visitor

    Not everyone can use ContentID and as far as i know, they wont give access to this tool to individuals/single artists.
    “Content ID acceptance is based on an evaluation of each applicant’s actual need for the tools. Applicants must be able to provide evidence of the copyrighted content for which they control exclusive rights.”
    (…)
    “Content ID applicants may be rejected if other tools better suit their needs. These other tools include the copyright notification web form and the Content Verification Program (CVP). More information about content management options may be found here.”
    https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311402?hl=en&ref_topic=3005545

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “as far as i know, they [YouTube] wont give access to this tool [Content ID] to individuals/single artists.”
      YouTube doesn’t say anything of the sort. That’s just what all these middle men want you to believe, for obvious reasons.
      “Content ID acceptance is based on an evaluation of each applicant’s actual need for the tools. Applicants must be able to provide evidence of the copyrighted content for which they control exclusive rights.”
      Yes of course, that goes without saying. Again:
      “[Content ID] is designed for exclusive rights holders whose content is frequently uploaded to YouTube by the user community. If no one is uploading content you own, you don’t need this program”
      https://www.youtube.com/t/contentid
      That means, as stated in my post above, that you can’t sign up for Content ID if you don’t need it.
      Why would that be a problem?
      “Content ID applicants may be rejected if other tools better suit their needs”
      Yes, again:
      “content owners with only occasional content management needs, or who seek a simpler solution, YouTube’s other copyright tools may be more appropriate.”
      https://www.youtube.com/t/contentid
      In short, anybody who needs Content ID can use it — for free, without paying any fees to Audiam or anybody else.

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        Well, lets try it. Im an independent artist with 2 albuns, 20 videos from my songs and 20.000 views on my channel.
        I’ll let you know

        Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          “20.000 views on my channel”
          20k channel views is the perfect example of a channel that does not need Content ID!
          That amount of views won’t even buy a bottle of Scotch, and I can guarantee that you don’t have any problems with unauthorized user generated content.
          Again:
          “[Content ID] is designed for exclusive rights holders whose content is frequently uploaded to YouTube by the user community. If no one is uploading content you own, you don’t need this program”
          https://www.youtube.com/t/contentid

          Reply
          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Ok, I get your (and YouTube) point.
            So:
            1) If you are an SMALL INDEPENDENT ARTIST like me (2 albuns/20 videos/~20.000 views) you do NOT need Content ID as you worth nothing considering the user-generated-content of your songs (use AdSense to generate some revenue from your own channel)
            2) If you are a BIG INDEPENDENT ARTIST you can ask YT/Google for direct access to Content ID
            Conclusion (again): We do NOT need any of these middle men that “not write the song, record the song or create the video, not create the artist’s YouTube account or even upload the artist’s video to YouTube.” And just wanna suck your independent blood to make money out of volume.

          • He's wrong. You do need conten
            He's wrong. You do need conten

            I’m an artist. My YouTube channel has very few views. I do need Content ID. Becasue of it, I get checks for around $250 every quarter from content outside of my YouTube channel.
            The Content ID system is setup for people with large catalogs, it’s not intented for artists to manage directly. It’s actual work to manage these claims. I’d rather be working on writing/promoting music instead of messing around with yet another account.
            To make a correlation between the number of your views on your channel to the opportunity of your music out there is a big mistake. It just means you don’t understand what is happening on YouTube and what an enourmous opportunity it is.

          • I'm an artist
            I'm an artist

            No, I’m an artist who’s been doing this a while (long before it was the latest craze). You’re just wrong and it’s pretty clear to everyone. This is just like saying anyone can set up a direct account with iTunes, and if iTunes rejects you, you don’t need to be there.
            There are a lot of different scenarios for how this can work. It’s not one size fits all.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “The Content ID system is setup for people with large catalogs, it’s not intented for artists to manage directly.”
            Oh, really?
            You may want to read Zoe Keating’s comments here:

      • Visitor
        Visitor

        You know that all these middle man are trying to suck your independent blood (out of volume, as you alone worth nothing from the UGC point of view) when you see posts like this and more (small and huge) companies trying to do the same without actually creating anything (no new technology as everyone are standing on YouTube’s shoulder)
        Just yesterday, AdRev launched (pay attention!!!) ContentID.com. And there’s Audiam, ONErpm, CDBaby, The Orchard, Machinima, Fullscreen, Maker, etc, etc.
        But you know, these guys are building businesses on top of YouTube and you can expect that Google will – sooner or later – will find a way to cut the middle man so they can get more money out of there own job (and your content).
        More infos: http://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/mcns.html
        Please note the following:
        You may become a partner and monetize your content without joining an MCN. Click here for more information.We do not endorse or recommend any particular MCN or MCNs in general. You should make the decision whether or not to accept an MCNs invitation.

        Reply
  16. Visitor
    Visitor

    Do not suggest that channels must join MCNs to earn revenue and gain access to YouTube tools.
    source: http://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/manage-mcn.html
    MCN Guidelines

    Below are MCN guidelines.
    Guidelines:

    Add value. You should not simply aggregate channels in order to obtain advertising revenue without providing a service in return. MCN services could include dedicated partner management, technology/tools, production facilities, promotion, channel optimization, advertising sales support, and/or other services.Communicate with your partners. Keep channels in your MCN updated on YouTube policies and practices. Give your channels visibility into their performance and their revenues. Make sure your creator partners have a point of contact within your organization.Affiliate with channels responsibly. Before adding a channel through YouTube’s system, you must contact the channel owner and agree on the terms of your affiliation. Do not transfer channels to other MCNs or receive channels from other MCNs without the explicit permission of the affected channels. Respect channel owners’ privacy; don’t request to access more information than is necessary. Be sure you abide by all applicable laws relating to your relationship with your channel partners.Be fair. Keep your commitments to your channels, including those relating to payment. Release channels when appropriate. Don’t ask channels to enter into one-sided agreements.Be honest. Be clear, honest, and transparent in how you define and describe representations about your services. Do not imply an official association with or endorsement by YouTube or Google. Do not suggest that channels must join MCNs to earn revenue and gain access to YouTube tools. Do not suggest that you are representing the views or opinions of YouTube or YouTube personnel.

    Reply
  17. Dougie_D
    Dougie_D

    I honestly didn’t read everyones post and I’m not sure if I want to BUT here are things people are SERIOUSLY forgeting.
    1. The video has to be CLAIMED first.
    2. There can be MULTIPLE CLAIMS on each video. It’s whoever has acces the the YT partnership is who can claim on Sound Recording (studio recordings) or/and Compositions (covers, live, etc…)
    3. It’s not the amount of VIEWS that matter. If a video has 1,000 views but only 20 people actually click or watch an entire ad, that’s less than 10% of your views.
    4. Majority of artists don’t have HIT songs or a song that’s TRENDING. And if their song is…read number 5.
    5. Majority of artists that would use these services are most likely UNSIGNED. If the artist makes a buzz, I would bet that the labels, publishers will take control of the music and these services get crushed.
    6. It’s quantity over quality. An artist like PARRY GRIPP who can bust out 20 songs a day (if he wanted…) will always be a winner.
    7. YouTube videos are controlled by the VIEWERS, not the FANS. Fans will watch the videos on the artist’s channel. Viewers will watch a “fan upload” video with the artist’s music on it. If you have 1 video but 20 of them upload their own videos with musical content, that’s 21 CLAIMS, instead of 1. So “fan upload” videos are actually more valuable…which also drives Itunes sales. Harlem Shake?
    8. Services like Audiam NEEDS higher claim numbers to profit. ContentID.com doesn’t have that problem. They already have MAJOR publishing contracts. Which actually MAKES MORE claims than anyone.
    9. The average ARTIST needs to use a service that can help CLAIM for them. There could be unknown videos that are claimable. It could be a label, publisher, ContentID, Ingrooves, Audiam, etc..that helps find these videos that use some sort of Audio Matching program.
    10. Audiam has a disadvange already. Most artists who have music on Itunes have digital distributers who can already claim videos on an artists behalf. I think that’s why Mr. Price was trying to call them out. It’s all about timing. Remember, YouTube has been around for at least 7 years??? That’s A LOT of videos that could be possibly claimed. Which is something these services can present to their client.

    Reply
  18. Visitor
    Visitor

    Totally agree with this response to Jeff Price’s original article.
    Jeff totally overlooked the fact that most distributers are delivering content to YouTube via the ContnetID system. In order to do this as a distributer, you’ll be leveraging the power of your digital supply chain system. This will either be a bespoke solution which probably took years of R&D and development, or you’ll be paying a 3rd party company. What ever the system, you have the cost of server hosting, disk space and bandwidth.
    Digital distributers, deliver content to YouTube in exactly the same way they would iTunes, Spotify etc.
    “Let’s be clear. It is NOT a distribution fee, the distributor did not “distribute” anything to YouTube. It’s a “we’re taking a piece of your revenue because we can” fee.”
    If Jeff’s argument were correct, would it not be unfair for distributors to expect a fee for distributing content to traditional streaming/download stores?
    Maybe I am being stupid, but he makes no sense to me.

    Reply
  19. visitor4 (because i forgot to
    visitor4 (because i forgot to

    Quote “Got to love this place. Where a pissing match between two “executives” passes for marketing of their respective services.
    Glad to see how much the music business continues to “evolve”.
    Makes you miss the old days even more…”

    Its pretty messed up..
    Though if this is an example of the average music “executive” , I guess it at least explains why the music industry is in the state it is now..

    Reply
  20. Steven Cravis
    Steven Cravis

    Audiam has already shown me 2385 video links, outside my own channel, with my music found, with a total of over 3.6 million views, and that doesn’t even represent all of my music catalog yet. I’ll wait and see how much this amounts to in money that I will make, but meanwhile, I haven’t seen ANY company come close to this kind of result regarding finding videos out there that have my music. My hunch is that no one else knows what they’re doing with content id technology and organization the way Audiam does.
    Note: I realize that some musician/composers may not have as much of their music out there, as part of other’s videos in YouTube, as me – and some may have way more than me. Everything is relative.
    Steven Cravis
    P.S. I happen to think that Jeff Price is a great guy who is doing the right thing for artists. The title of this article is inherently misleading and desperate in my opinion.

    Reply
    • JTV Digital
      JTV Digital

      Hi Steven,
      These are great and encouraging results.
      Just a quick note, TuneSat is scanning YouTube on behalf of Audiam.
      So TuneSat found 2385 videos containing your music where they’ll send a claim on (“UGC claim”).
      You will get 75% of the ad revenue shared by YouTube on these videos, which should be quite nice if you have 3.6 million views.
      Too bad that we’ve not communicated on this yet, but we may have been able to get you a better revenue share…
      Kind regards,
      JTV Digital

      Reply
  21. wewontbefooledagain
    wewontbefooledagain

    Guess what? Jeff Price IS the bully in this discussion and he LIKES it! Don’t trust him as far as you can throw him. If you feel like he has done so much for artists, why not ask the ones he inaccurately reported accountings to at his now defunct record label, SpinArt.
    He is a delusioned predator shark who learned his tricks from the worst in the business.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *